Undergraduate Research Methods in Psychology
Department of Psychology
The methods of psychological research may be different from those found in chemistry, physics, or biology - but we still follow the same principals in how we conduct our investigations.
To be scientific, we must first be empirical, that is, to rely upon systemic and controlled observations of a phenomenon. We cannot be purely intuitive, which is to make decision off of “gut feeling”.
Our scientific procedures may be compromised by confounding variables, poor ethical conduct, or limitations in design - we will discuss all of these throughout the semester
Example: Just like a chemist detailing each and every step in a successful or failed experiment, we must be equally detailed in our work as social scientists
Scientists are empiricists that assess phenomena through rigorous and systemic thinking, testing, and writing
It is not enough to just see a relationship once; instead we must be able to observe, measure, and elicit it consistently
We may use evidence from our senses, or from measurement tools to establish the properties and behaviors of a certain idea
Example: Issac Newton does not watch an apple fall from a tree just once, he drops many apples and other objects and carefully observes each.
These are general statements or concepts about how a certain phenomenon is believed to behave.
They are often multifaceted and expand over time as further information adds to and subtracts from understanding of a certain construct (Remember the Theory-Hypothesis-Data cycle from earlier!)
These theories, oftentimes, try to describe some relationship of two or more constructs, whether that be a monkey and a figurine; a person and a treatment; a person and another person; etc.
Most theories try to follow the rule of parsimony, that is, trying to fit the simplest-possible explanation for a phenomenon or observed behavior.
These are much more specific statements that often serve as the foundation for any particular study. They should be pre-registered - and stated prior to the actual commencement of the planned study.
Making hypotheses after a study, to fit the data, is unethical (we will later touch on this issue in Week 14).
These may be made within the context of a broader theory, but are likely to focus more concretely on a predicted outcome with tangible measures (that could be wrong!)
Several studies, led by several hypotheses, may all contribute to the development of a grander theory
Data is the output of an experiment or study, and contains the observations and tests that show significance or non-significance for the hypothesis, which aids in understanding whether the results support or refute the theory, respectively.
Just like with crafting our hypothesis, we have a lot of input in how our data is treated and tested - different designs and measure will produce various outcomes.
A singular study does not definitively prove a certain hypothesis or theory, nor can it fully disprove these. Rather, it may add to evidence for or against a certain idea.
Example in writing: “This paper aids in understanding how CBT-I may be beneficial for individuals with depression. Results indicate a moderate effect of the treatment in reducing depression in the present study. Future research is needed to clarify the effect in different populations and contexts.”
Put statistically: we never prove or disprove our null hypothesis (\(H_0\)), we just supply evidence for or against our alternative hypothesis (\(H_1\))
Only once many studies have provided support for a theory, can we say the weight of evidence is in favor of it.
Falsifiability: Good research must allow for our theory and/or hypothesis to be flawed or erroneous. If this is not accounted for, we engage in confirmation bias, or effectively choosing to only investigate for our views.
It is critical that our design, statistics, and reporting make clear the possibility that a study is limited in its scope and abilities
No one study is so perfectly designed that it can account for all edge cases in a phenomenon
How do we test a component of primate attachment theory? We must perform an empirical experiment!
This also shows the falsifiability of good research - we must be willing to be wrong (i.e., we provide the possibility that the experiment can go the “other way”)
But, this one study does not singularly define attachment theory, the weight of evidence requires more studies!
Robert Merton proposed a set of scientific norms that can and should guide our actions and behaviors in approaching and conducting research
Universalism states that “science is for everyone” and that claims are not based solely upon the expertise or stature of the scientist, but rather, their methodology and rigor
Communality is the concept that science is done in a community and as a collective, not only a small group of individuals.
Disinterestedness states that we must be guided by a commitment to truth and accurate knowledge, not by monetary gain or pushing of a particular ideology.
Organized Skepticism says we must commit ourselves to be critical of everything, even ourselves ! We question things, not to simply be contrarian, but because we must understand the faults in existing knowledge.
Scientists communicate primarily through publishing findings in academic journals that use a system of editors and peer reviewers to ensure the rigor and validity of a study
If a paper is published, it may be cited by future scientists in support of certain claims and arguments in papers, presentations, and reports. Or, others can also disagree and provide competing evidence in their own work.
Journals may range in quality and rigor though! We will discuss some nuances in this later in the semester
Also, some journals may be difficult to access, but there are many ways we may use the library resources to access the texts
Specialized journalists often try to bring scientific findings (published in journals) to a medium that is more acceptable to laypeople.
However, these writings are not peer-reviewed the same as the original research - and may overstate, understate, or be reductive towards the “true” findings
When in doubt \(\rightarrow\) always go to the original publication!!
Week 1 Lecture - Scientific Thinking || Undergraduate Research Methods in Psychology